They Will Not Prevail

The enemies of God are planners and schemers. In Psalm 2:1-3 the nations and rulers plot and take counsel on how they can break God’s chains. What can we do to escape God? How can we run from Him? How can we evade his rules? What can we do to destroy his Word and make him disappear? Imagine a bunch of corporate lawyers sitting in a back room late at night plotting the overthrow of another company.

In our culture this plotting takes place through things like feminism, sexual freedom, the acceptance of evolution, the careful parsing of God’s word by weak-willed men (and women) so that it becomes impotent, college classes on gender studies, failure to call public leaders to repentance, and a denial of sin as the problem in our lives.

For Christians who love God’s Word and its Author, this scheming can be discouraging. Our resources are paltry. Leaders are dropping like zombies in The Walking Dead. Doctrinal compromise is normal. Every day more laws get passed that destroy the remnants of Christianity that were once in our culture. And what of the Church? She is harassed and persecuted around the world. Where she is not persecuted by the enemies of God she is threatened by wolves who have found their way into the sheepfold. All in all, there are times we wonder if Jesus missed something when He said, “The gates of hell will not prevail against his church” (Matthew 16:18).

There is a great encouragement for us in Exodus 15. Exodus 15:1-21 is the song that Israel sung after the Egyptians had been drowned in the Red Sea.  The song exalts in God’s marvelous power to deliver his people from the strongest of enemies. Verse 9 takes us behind the curtain to see what the Egyptians were planning:

The enemy said, 'I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them. I will draw my sword; my hand shall destroy them.'

The Egyptian army had it all worked out. They were going to overtake that ragtag band of slaves, led by an 80 year old shepherd and destroy them. They were going slaughter them by the seashore spilling their blood all over the sand and then go back to feast. They were cocky and sure of themselves. After all, Israel's back was to the sea and Egypt had the greatest army in the world. What or who could possibly stop them? 

But just like Psalm 2:4 God laughed. Man can plot and scheme, but God is the one who directs history. God’s plans are the only sure plans.  Egypt does not prevail. Instead they are destroyed. Exodus 14:30 says that Israel saw the bodies of the Egyptians washed up on the shore. Exodus 15:1-10 says God

Threw the horse and rider into the sea

Cast Pharaoh’s army into the sea

Drowned Pharaoh’s choicest of captains so they sank like stones

Dashed the enemy into pieces

Consumed them like stubble

Covered them with the sea

All those plans, all those schemes thwarted in a moment by a God who is not like other gods (Exodus 15:11), but is glorious, fearful, powerful, and a man of war. 

If you are Christian do not fear the plans of the great men of this world. Politicians, professors, movie stars, talking heads, Muslims, and false teachers of all stripes can plot and scheme to tear down God and his people, but in the end they will not prevail. They will come to nothing. They are but a drop in the bucket and dust on the scales (Isaiah 40:18).  Do not listen to the fear mongers in the press or on your Facebook page. Even your Christian friends can get sucked into the vortex that says that God will not deliver and it would have been better to stay in Egypt (Exodus 14:10-12). Tell them to not be afraid. God has already saved us to the uttermost in Christ. We have already seen the salvation of God (Exodus 14:13). Sin, Satan, death, and our enemies have all been put under his feet. Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18-20).  He rules over the kings of the earth (Rev. 1:5). Why the fear? Why the anxiety? Why the lack of trust? Christian believe him. He rescued Israel. He will rescue us. 

But if you are not a Christian or if you used to profess faith in Christ, but now you are drifting away, you should fear. You will not come through the sea. You can plot, scheme, push those thoughts about death away, hope it is all a myth, ignore God's word, but it will not change a thing. One day you will stand face to face with the God who drowned thousands. If Pharaoh was destroyed by Him, what chance do you have? If his chariots were dashed to pieces on the rocks, what hope have you of escaping by your own power? But He is not all wrath. He is also kind to those who trust in His Son Jesus Christ (Psalm 2:7, 12) and turn to Him. Join the glorious band who have been delivered by the blood of Jesus. Join those of us who because of God's kindness came through on the dry land (Exodus 15:19). You too can see the salvation of God (Exodus 14:13) if you will just trust in Jesus and follow Him.  

Good Works and Final Salvation

It was interesting to find this quote from Peter van Mastricht (1630-1706) about three periods of justification. Mark Jones quotes this with approval in the chapter "Good Words and Rewards" in his excellent book Antinomianism. I have removed Scripture references.

From this come three periods of justification that should be diligently observed here, namely 1: The period of establishment, by which man is first justified: in this occasion not only is efficacy of works excluded for acquiring justification, but so is the very presence of these works in so far as God justifies the sinner and the wicked. 2: The period of continuation: in this occasion, although no efficacy of good works is granted for justification, the presence of these same works, nevertheless, is required. And it is probably in this sense that James denies that we are justified by faith along but he requires works in addition. And lastly 3: The period of consummation in which the right unto eternal life, granted under the first period and continued under the second, is advanced even to the possession of eternal life: in this occasion not only is the presence of good works required, but also, in a certain sense, their efficacy, in so far as God, whose law we attain just now through the merit alone of Christ, does not want to grant possession of eternal life, unless [it is] beyond faith with good works previously performed. We received once before the right unto eternal life through the merit of Christ alone.  But God does not want to grant possession  of eternal life, unless there are, next to faith, also good works which precede this possession. 

Mark Jones closes the paragraph with this note.

It is a sign of the times that not a few in the broadly Reformed church today--indeed, even professors of theology, would have a real problem with Van Mastricht's conclusion that eternal life is not granted unless good works are performed by the godly.

Do we believe that good works are necessary for final salvation? I have found very few Christians, even reformed ones, who would say yes.  Jones' book challenged me on this issue.

Are You the Antichrist?

           One of the great myths of modern end times study is the rise of the antichrist.  The picture is usually some great world leader who is inhabited by the Devil and takes over the United Nations. What is odd about this is that the only author to speak of the antichrist is John. And John does not speak of a “him” but of a “them.” And he does not speak of someone future, but someone present.  Here are the verses where John speaks of the antichrist.

             

(18) Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.  (19)  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.  (20)  But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.  (21)  I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.  (22)  Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. (I John 2:18-22, ESV)

            Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

(1Jn 4:1-3, ESV)

           

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

(2Jn 1:7, ESV)

            There are several things to note about these verses.

First, John plainly says it is the last hour.  The end came 2,000 years ago. 

Second, John knows it is the last hour because many antichrists have come. This is past tense to John. He is not looking for some future Antichrist.  There are antichrists everywhere he looks. He says a similar thing in 4:3.  His readers knew antichrist was coming. John is telling them they are now here. Antichrists were a sign of the end. But again the end came 2,000 years ago. 

Third, these antichrists went out from the Apostles. This is the point of verse 19. If they had stayed with John and the Apostles they would have shown themselves to be true prophets. As it is, they are liars and antichrists. John knows these antichrists personally. They went to seminary together.

Fourth, John shows very clearly what an antichrist looks like: an antichrist denies the Father and Son (2:22) and confesses that Jesus did not come in the flesh/is not from God. (4:2-3 and II John 1:7) An antichrist is not a great world leader who takes over the planet in the name of Satan.  An antichrist is someone who denies a basic part of the Christian faith: Jesus left God and came in the flesh. Anyone who denies this is an antichrist. 

Fifth and finally, note that John says that many antichrists have come and that many deceivers who are antichrists have gone out into the world.  He does not speak of a single Antichrist. Many pastors associate this passage with the “man of lawlessness” from II Thessalonians 2:3. I have no idea why. The person in II Thessalonians tries to replace God with himself. There is nothing in I John that parallels that. John and Paul are talking about two different people.  Ditto for the beast in Revelation. The antichrist denies a fundamental Christian doctrine, that Jesus came in the flesh. H is not someone who wants to be Jesus or God. 

The upshot of all this is that we should not be looking for the rise of an Antichrist. We should be looking for false teachers who deny the Son and the Father. Our failure here has allowed us to write hundreds of books about the end of the world, while rarely dealing with what John is talking about.  We tell lots of scary stories about some bald guy who rules the world with 666 tattooed on his forehead. But that man doesn't exist. While there are many, including Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, who deny the Son and the Father. So every time a Jehovah's Witness comes to your door, you should say, "Do you know that you are the Antichrist?" This may not open up evangelistic doors, but it is the truth. 

15 Reasons Why Matthew 24 is About the Destruction of Jerusalem

1.   The immediate context of Matthew 21-23 involves the temple, Jerusalem and the cursing of Israel not the end of the world.  

2.      The book of Matthew is about judgment coming upon Israel. See chapter 12:22-45, as well as the parables in 13. This theme is continued in chapter 24.

3.      “Generation” is used in Matthew 1:17, 11:16, 12:39, 41, 42, 45, 16:4, 17:17, 23:36, and 24:34.  Every other place besides Matthew 24:34 it refers to a literal generation or to the generation standing right in front of Jesus. Why should we change the meaning in 24:34?

4.      The imagery used throughout Matthew 24:15-20 is local imagery. Flee to the mountains. Get out of Jerusalem. Do not wait.  These commands make no sense if Jesus is describing a worldwide tribulation.  

5.      The use of Daniel 7:13 in Matthew 24:30 is a reference to Jesus going up to the Father, not coming down for the 2^nd coming. Matthew is not talking about Jesus coming again, but rather rising up to God and sitting on his throne. Matthew 26:63-64 shows the same thing.

6.      The constant use of “you” throughout the text. This must apply to the disciples or else the entire speech makes no sense. This does not mean it cannot in some way also apply down the line to something else, but there must be an application to the 1^st century hearers.

7.      While it is possible for “tribes of earth” in Matthew 24:30 to mean the whole earth, the word often means land, as in Rome (Luke 2:1)or land of Israel (25:45, 51) or even just the ground (25:18).  With the word “tribes” attached to it, it is more likely that this refers to the 12 tribes of Israel and not the whole world.

8.      Matthew 24:32-33 shows that Jesus expected his disciples to see the signs and act accordingly.

9.      Luke 19:41-44 and 21:20 makes it clear this is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem.

10.  Paul is clear that Matthew 24:14 was fulfilled before his death. (See Romans 10:18, 16:25-26, Colossians 1:6, 23)

11.  The phrases used in Matthew 24:29 are not literal in the Bible. Isaiah 13:9-10 uses this imagery about the destruction of Babylon. Ezekiel 32:7-8 is about the destruction of Egypt. Joel 2 uses this imagery of a locust attack. While the locusts were probably literal, if you read through chapter 2 you will see that most of the imagery is not. Amos 8:9 uses this imagery to describe the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. Acts 2:17-21 describes what is being fulfilled right in front of them and again it is not literal. There is no reason that it has to be literal here (or in Revelation for that matter).

12.  The description of what will happen to the disciples in Matthew 24:8-11, Mark 13:9-11, and Luke 21:12 are all in Acts and Paul’s letters. Matthew 24:8-11 does not demand a world-wide persecution of Christians. It fits very well into the history of the church we find in the N.T.

13.  Jesus and Stephen were accused of preaching against the temple. (See Matthew 26:61 and Acts 6:13) We can argue about what they said, but it is clear that those surrounding Jesus and the Jews in the New Testament felt they were against the temple.

14.  The use of the end of the age/last days, etc. throughout the N.T demands a first century reading for the phrase “end of the age” in Matthew 24:3, 13, and 14.  (See I Corinthians 10:11, Hebrews 1:1-2, and I John 2:18).

15.  There are comings of God/Jesus in the OT and NT that are not physical comings. (See Psalm 18:10-12, Isaiah 19:1, and Revelation 2:5, 16, and 3:3)

Who is Taken?

Many Christians think the following verses refer to the rapture:

Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. (Mat 24:40-41)

The idea is that the Christians are taken up into heaven so they can escape the great tribulation while are the non-believers are left on earth to endure 7 years of fire, hail, brimstone, rivers turning to blood, etc.

However, there are problems with this interpretation. First, Matthew does not support it. Here is Matthew 24:37-39:

For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 

Who are the ones taken away or swept away in these verses? Not the Christians. It is the non-Christians. Those who were not prepared for the flood were the ones taken away.  Noah was the one  left behind.

Second, Luke also does not view this as the rapture, but rather as a taking away to judgment or to die just like Matthew. Here is the parallel passage in Luke to Matthew 24:36-44:

I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left." And they said to him, "Where, Lord?" He said to them, "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." (Luke 17:34-37)

Notice in Luke the disciples (see verse 22) follow up Jesus' description about people being taken with a question about where they will be taken. Jesus' answer does not indicate a rapture. Where will they be taken? Look for the vultures. They will be eating their flesh. Whatever you think about the rapture, vultures eating the flesh of those taken does not usually figure into it.

So being taken in Matthew 24 and Luke 17 is not about the rapture. It is about Roman soldiers coming and dragging men off to die and to be slaves and to be imprisoned.

When Did Jesus Come on the Clouds of Heaven?

One of the more difficult verses for those of us who believe Matthew 24 is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem is Matthew 24:30. Here we are told that "They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."  A vast majority of Americans cannot imagine this verse referring to anything other than the 2nd coming of Christ. Yet Scripture tells a different story.

Matthew 24:30 is a quote from Daniel 7:13. Here is Daniel 7:13-14:

(13)  "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

(14)  And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Jesus is clearly referring to this verse when he says this in Matthew 24:30. A couple of observations about Daniel 7:30.

First, the Son of Man is Jesus. This is obvious from the numerous times Jesus calls himself that.

Second, the Son of  Man is coming up, not down. He is going up to the Ancient of Days, a reference to God the Father.

Third, when he goes up he is given dominion. He does not have to wait to receive the world or to become King. He is given rule when he ascends.

So when does this event occur? Let's look at four verses that tell us, three from Matthew and one from Acts.

In Matthew 16:28 Jesus says that some of his disciples will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom. Some commentators think this refers to the Transfiguration in Matthew 17. However, this is unlikely since the terminus is the death of some of the disciples. If they were going to see the Kingdom in six days (17:1) this statement makes no sense. So some of the disciples would see Son of Man coming in his Kingdom before they die. Again the coming of the Son of Man is not some far off event.

In Matthew 26:63 the high priest asks Jesus to tell him plainly, "Are you the Christ, the Son of God?" Jesus replies saying, "It is as you say. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven." The key phrase is "hereafter" or "from now on (ESV)." The word means from this moment on, at this exact moment, up until now. It does not contain any idea that this is some long off event. For example, it is used in 26:53 where Jesus says that the Father can send twelve legions "at once" (ESV).  (See Matthew 3:15, 9:18, 11:12, 23:39, and 26:39 where the word is also used.) So Jesus here is not saying that in some long off future 2,000 plus years away, I will come back to earth on the clouds of heaven. No. He is telling the high priest that from now on I will be seated at the right hand of the Father and coming on the clouds of heaven. It is a very near reality.

In Matthew 28:18 Jesus says that all authority has been (past tense) given to  him and therefore we should disciple the nations. Daniel 7:14 matches up exactly with this idea.

Finally, in Acts 1:9 Jesus goes up to the Father on the clouds of heaven and in 2:34-36 Peter makes clear that Jesus is now sitting at the right hand of the Father. We could also throw in Stephen's vision of Christ at his death (Acts 7:56).

This does not mean Jesus will not return. Of course, he will. Acts 1:11, among many other passages, makes that clear. But it does mean the coming mentioned in Matthew 24:30 is not the second coming. It has already taken place.

Some Thoughts on Matthew 24 and Pastor MacArthur

Here is a quote from Pastor John MacArthur on why Matthew 24:1-35 cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

When in 70 A.D., for example, was the sun darkened, the moon not giving its light, the stars all falling out of heaven and the Son of Man appearing in heaven in gathering the elect from the four corners of the earth? When in...at that particular time did all the tribes on the face of the earth mourn? No way, absolutely impossible. And in 70 A.D. it was the Romans against the Jews. It wasn't nation rising against nation and kingdom rising against kingdom and earthquakes and pestilences all over the world. No. It's impossible. It cannot refer to 70 A.D. so that also is an unacceptable view.

I want to make a couple of comments about this. I will not discuss the sign of the Son of Man because that is more complex. But Pastor MacArthur makes several bad assumptions in this section to support his view. 

First, there are numerous places in the Bible where the terminology "the sun was darkened..." is used. It never refers to this literally happening. Here are a few: 

Isaiah 13:10, here it refers to the destruction of Babylon (vs. 1). There was no literal fulfillment. 

Ezekiel 32:7-8, here it refers to the destruction of Egypt (vs. 2). Again no literal fulfillment. 

Amos 8:9-10, here it refers to God sending Israel into exile. Again no literal fulfillment. 

Acts 2:19-20, here it refers to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and fulfillment of Joel 2:30-31 and the prophecy found there. Peter seems to think this is being fulfilled right there in front of them. Again no literal fulfillment. 

My question is why would Pastor MacArthur assume that Jesus meant this literally? 

Second, why would he assume that "tribes" does not mean Israel mourning? He seems to think tribes means people all over the world. But in the NT tribes refers almost exclusively to Israel. Did Israel mourn when their city and the Temple was destroyed? In fact, one could argue that the repentance of the Jews in Acts 2:37 was part of this mourning. 

Third, his assumptions about nation rising against nation and kingdom against kingdom are wrong. Tacitus a Roman historian who lived between 55-117 A.D. speaks of wars in Britain and Armenia, as well as numerous disturbances, commotions, and insurrections all over the Roman Empire. Josephus another Roman historian writes that there were so many civil wars in Rome that he cannot even write about them, except in brief. What Pastor MacArthur has done is taken our perspective on nations and throw it back on the NT writers. 

Fourth, the Bible does not say there will be earthquakes "all over the world." It says, "earthquakes in various places." (Matthew 24:7) We have at least three earthquakes recorded in the N.T. One when Jesus died (Matthew 27:51). One when the stone rolled away (28:2). That one is called a great earthquake. And one when Paul and Silas escaped from prison in Acts 16:26. Again this one is called great. The historians of the time also list numerous earthquakes, include Pompeii, which was severely damaged by earthqake in 63 A.D.  Pastor MacArthur says this about verse 7

"And notice what it says at the end of verse 7, 'in various places.' In other words, these things aren't going to happen here and there from time to time. But they're going to come in large doses in many places at the same time."

Why does he interpret it this way? The verse does not say in many places or all over or in great quantity. In fact, the phrase "various places" could easily mean that they happen here and there and from time to time.

Fifth, Matthew mentions famines in 24: 7. Acts 11:28 specifically mentions a famine that covers the whole land. This famine may have been the reason for some of the relief effort mentioned in passages like I Corinthians 16:1-5 and Romans 15:25-28. Historians of the time also mention numerous famines as well. So 24:7 does not demand hundreds of famines happening all over the world. 

Sixth, after wars, earthquakes, and famines in Matthew 24:7 we read this in verses 9-10:
"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake." Pastor MacArthur does not address these verses in this paragraph, but he does in another sermon. In that sermon he makes it clear that this is referring to the persecution of Christians at the end of time. Again why this assumption?

Here are the parallel passages from Mark 13 and Luke 21

Mark 13:9 "But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.

Luke 21:12  But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake.

When I read these passages I can only think of Acts. All this stuff is in Acts. They were beaten (5:40) they were stoned (7:57-60), they were persecuted from town to town (8:1), they were thrown in prison (Acts 12:4, 16:24), and they were brought before councils and rulers (Acts 22:30, 23:1, 24:1, 25:1, and 26:1). Why is this not even addressed by Pastor MacArthur? 

Generation in Matthew Again

A fun  exercise with the previous post is to simply insert "whole Israelite race" in every place where Matthew says "generation." You will find all sorts of absurdity when you do that and it proves my point exactly. What does it mean for Jesus to say in Matthew 12:41 that Nineveh will rise up against the Jewish race and condemn it? Clearly the whole Jewish race is not condemned. So what exactly does it mean?

Generation in Matthew 24:34

Every book of the Bible has difficult passages to interpret. Matthew is no exception. From the Sermon on the Mount, to the parables in chapter 13, to divorce in Chapter 19 (and 5), to eschatology in chapters 23-25 Matthew is demanding exegetically and pastorally.  I am finishing up my study of Matthew 19 and getting ready for the home stretch. Of course, eschatology comes the forefront in chapters 23-25, though it has been there from the beginning of Matthew. So this brings me to my study of the word generation in Matthew 24:34, which has been used by dispensational scholars to claim that Matthew 24 is not about the fall of Jerusalem, but is about Christ's second coming.  Here is the fruit of my study of that word. 

Is it possible for the word “generation” in Matthew 24:34 to mean anything other than the generation that was living at the time of Christ?  Many pastors and New Testament scholars read Matthew 24 as a reference to the end of the world. All the references in Matthew 24:4-34 are assumed to refer to Christ’s second coming. However, verse 34 puts a wrench in this particular timeline.  Does the Bible give us the freedom to interpret the passage this way?

            To answer this question I have put down every passage in Matthew that uses the word generation.  Does Matthew ever use the word generation to mean anything other than the current generation? Here are the uses of generation in Matthew:

(Mat 1:17)  So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

(Mat 11:16)  "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates,

(Mat 12:39)  But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

(Mat 12:41)  The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

(Mat 12:42)  The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.

(Mat 12:45)  Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation."

(Mat 16:4)  An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." So he left them and departed.

(Mat 17:17)  And Jesus answered, "O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me."

(Mat 23:36)  Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

(Mat 24:34)  Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Here are four reasons why generation in Matthew 24:34 means the people standing in front of Jesus and not the Jewish race as a whole or some future generation thousands of years away. 

First, every time generation is used in Matthew (expect 1:17) it is in the context of judgment.  Christ is clear that this generation will be judged. They will be judged for asking for a sign. They will be judged for refusing Jesus and John. They will be judged for being faithless.  If 24:34 is a promise that Israel will never pass away it is at odds with almost every other use of generation in Matthew.

Second,  Matthew 16:4 gives a specific time frame for this generation.  They will get a sign; the resurrection.  At least in 16:4, it is not referring to some future generation thousands of years away. It is referring to the generation who will see the resurrection. 

Third, generation always refers to a particular group of people at a particular time. Even in 1:17 it is talking about generations of men. It never refers to the Jewish race as a whole. The idea that generation in Matthew 24:34 means the Jewish race is without biblical and linguistic support.

Fourth, Matthew 23 is a clear condemnation of the current generation that rejected Christ and his teaching. Matthew 23:36 is a reference to the people standing right in front of Jesus. The unfaithful Jews of that day will be judged. They are whitewashed tombs. The reference to Jerusalem in 23:37 makes this even clearer.  It is hard to see how in 24:36 in the exact same context Jesus uses the exact same phrase, yet now it means the Jewish race will never perish. 

The Antichrist in John's Epistles: Part III

Another line of argument for a future Antichrist is the phrase “is coming” in 2:18. The verb is in the present tense. Normally it would be translated as “you have heard that antichrist comes.” However, most translations take this as “futuristic present.” This is described by Daniel Wallace as when “the present tense may describe an event that is wholly subsequent to the time of speaking, although as if it were present.”[1] Wallace adds this use of the present tense is commonly found with the verb “erchomai,” which is the word “is coming” in our text. Whether or not this is futuristic is difficult to determine. Even if it is, the question still remains as to whether it is future to the time of John writing or was future when he told them about it in the past (you have heard).  Notice the parallel between 2:18 and 4:3:

 

2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.

4:3 This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

It is possible to read 2:18 as, “you have heard that Antichrist is coming in the future, but even now there are many antichrists who prefigure that coming antichrist.”  This is how Pastor MacArthur reads the passage.   

Or it could be read, “You heard in the past that antichrist would come and now he/they have arrived." The second reading fits better with the rest of John’s references to the antichrist, while the first reading does not.

Either way, this is not a slam-dunk argument for making the Antichrist an end times world leader.

One final argument is used to say antichrist refers to end times world leader.  John says in 2:18 and in 4:3 that the people “have heard” that the antichrist is coming.  Some pastors take this as a reference to II Thessalonians 2. They will say that Paul speaks of the Antichrist in II Thessalonians and that is where John’s readers heard about it. While this is possible, it is sheer speculation. There is nothing in I John that indicates he was writing to the same group that Paul wrote to or that his readers had access to Paul’s letters.  There is no direct connection in words or concepts between I John 2 and II Thessalonians 2.  It is just as likely that John has previously told them about the antichrist when he planted or visited the church he was writing to.

Everything in I and II John points to antichrists and the spirit of the antichrist being present during the time John was writing.  There are no verbal or conceptual parallels with other passages which speak of an end times leader, even in John’s book of Revelation. John’s epistles are pastoral in nature, discussing particular problems that were facing his readers. There is nothing in the text that demands we read antichrist as The Antichrist.

So what is the antichrist? The simple answer is that antichrist was a set of doctrines or beliefs that denied that Jesus was the Christ. This set of beliefs denied especially the Incarnation.  Any man who holds to these beliefs is a deceiver and the antichrist. So antichrist is both the set of beliefs and the men who hold those beliefs. By the way, Pastor MacArthur implies that all Christians are antichrists. This is overstating the case.  I think this was in his second sermon on this passage.  

            Readers may ask, “Why does this matter?”  First and foremost, all Christians should desire to be faithful to the biblical text. Before we move on to “practical” considerations, there must be a foundational desire to know exactly what the text says.  So our love for Christ demands that we properly understand what I and II John are teaching. Second, by showing that I and II John do not teach us about an end times leader called the Antichrist we are able to focus more clearly on what the text does say. Someone who believes that John is talking about a world leader who shows up during the Tribulation ends up spending a lot of time on passages that have nothing to do with I John. I think this can confuse the flock. Third, John is talking about religious leaders, false teachers who went out from the Apostles. The modern depiction of the Antichrist is that he is a political leader. Again this muddies the waters and causes a focus on nations and world leaders instead of teachers and pastors. Finally, too often when I and II John are preached they are couched in speculation. The flock does not get practical exhortations on how to fight the antichrist who shows up at their door, like the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons, Unitarians, or the liberal Presbyterian. (In fairness to Pastor MacArthur he only spends half of one sermon on the world leader. Most of his three sermons are devoted to how to combat present day antichrists.)

---

[1]  Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996),  p. 536.

The Antichrist in John's Epistles: Part II

One of the other arguments used to show that John is referring to some future world leader is the use “anti” on the front of Antichrist. “Anti” is a preposition, which can mean in the place or against. Usually what happens is that someone takes “anti” to mean someone who seeks to replace Christ. Then they are able to find the Antichrist in all sorts of places he is not mentioned, such as II Thessalonians 2:3-4 and the beast in Revelation 13. Here is long quote from Pastor MacArthur where he does this exact thing:

“Now without needing to go into all of the rest of what's in this wonderful section, we can sort of focus, to begin with, on this matter of Antichrist, a term that has become very familiar to Christians in this generation, as I'm sure in many other generations. The word Antichrist is well known to us. It occurs in the New Testament only in John's letters. It occurs in 1 John several times, and then it occurs in the seventh verse of 2 John. And though it is limited as a term to John's epistles, it expresses a widely known reality that is dealt with in other portions of the Bible, not only in the New Testament but even in the Old Testament as well. The term "Antichrist" which John uses is antichristos in the Greek. Christos obviously means Christ, anti can have two possible meanings. It is a Greek preposition that can mean either against or in the place of...against or in the place of. Antichrist can then mean either someone who is against Christ, or someone who seeks to replace Christ. Someone who is an adversary of Christ, or someone who is a false representation of Christ. We can take it then to mean the one who opposes Christ. In that case, the opposition is clear, it is plain. Or we can take it to mean one who seeks to be put in the place of Christ and then the opposition becomes more subtle and more disguised. And antichrist can mean either of those, or both. We don't need to choose between them. Clearly antichrist is one on some fronts who is openly and overtly against Christ. That is to say they speak lies concerning Christ, such as in verse 22 that I just read. They deny that Jesus is the Christ, a denial of the nature and identity and work of Jesus Christ. This is clearly an antichrist perspective.”

By focusing on the anti at the beginning of the word, Pastor MacArthur finds the Antichrist in places where the word is not used and where John’s picture of the antichrist is absent. For example, II Thessalonians 2 describes a man of lawlessness who exalts himself and tries to take the place of God. This fits with Matthew 24:17 and Daniel 9:27. However, this idea is absent from I and II John. The same thing is done with the beast of Revelation (see Revelation 13). The beast is someone who is worshipped, who makes war on the saints, etc. But none of these ideas are found in John’s teaching on the antichrist, which is all the more odd since John wrote Revelation. In other words, the man of lawlessness and the beast are not the Antichrist. 


D.A. Carson warns against what he calls the “root word” fallacy.[1] This is where the root of a word is used to determine its meaning instead of the context. This is what has happened here. Because “anti” can mean “seeks to replace,” and the person in II Thessalonians seeks to replace God then it must be the Antichrist. However, just because a word can mean something does not mean that it does. The context of I and II John must determine the meaning of antichrist, not the various uses of “anti.”  I and II John are clear on the character traits of antichrists. They are false teachers, who have left the Apostles, gone out into the world, so that they might deceive churches by teaching that Jesus did not come in the flesh and that he is not the Christ. Of course, Pastor MacArthur will agree with these points, but by using “anti” he can drag in another point, that Antichrist is the beast and man of lawlessness, which is foreign to I and II John. 

---

[1] Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), p.26-32.

The Antichrist in John's Epistles: Part I

Perhaps no vision has shaped contemporary eschatology like that of the Antichrist. He is the epitome of evil and will reign over all the earth supplanting Christ and bringing in  the rule of Satan. However, "antichrist" is only mentioned in I and II John. He is not mentioned in Revelation, where one would expect to find him, especially since John wrote both books.  As I read I and II John I tried to determine if John actually teaches what so many people think he teaches. The exegesis of the antichrist passages in John’s Epistles is usually informed, not by careful examination of the text, but rather by a prior commitment to a certain eschatological viewpoint.   A good example of using prior commitment to examine the text is Pastor John MacArthur’s sermons on I John 2:18-26.[1] He preaches three sermons on these verses. The second half of his first sermon covers passages like II Thessalonians 2, Daniel 8-10, and Revelation 13, not I John 2:18-26. It is interesting that the first part of his sermon, (and in his remaining two sermons on this passage) when he focuses on I John is all about contemporary antichrists. He does a great job exegeting the text. He lays open exactly what the text says. He tells us who these antichrists are and how they behave. But this is not enough. He believes in a final, all powerful Antichrist. But to find the one he must go to other passages. (By the way, I really enjoy Pastor MacArthur, but I disagree with him on this point.)

Before we begin exegesis of the Apostle John’s passages on the antichrist we need to ask, what is the commonly held view of the antichrist?   Pastor MacArthur sums it up well:

“The Bible is clear that one man will be the final, most complete and powerful Antichrist. He will appear in the future history of the world in a time which is called the time of the Tribulation. This is a time that will end man's day. It is a time, a seven-year period of time divided into two three-and-half year sections in which Satan releases his power in the world, at the same time God releases judgment in the world. And there will be in that day a world ruler who is identified as the Antichrist. He is the culminating and final one, that's why we have here the singular "Antichrist is coming.”

So the Antichrist is the final culmination of all evil and will come at the end of the world to set up a kingdom that is opposed to Christ. But does John actually teach this?

Let’s look carefully at the text in John’s Epistles which mention the antichrist and then determine if the commonly held view of the antichrist is correct. I will begin with what is agreed upon and then move to the areas of disagreement.  The following passages will be in discussed: I John 2:18-27, I John 4:1-3, and II John 1:7.  I would recommend having your Bible open has you read.

There are several areas of agreement between those who see the Antichrist as a culmination of all evil at the end of history and those who do not. Let me list those briefly. First, all parties agree that antichrists live in the world. This is clear from I John 2:18. John says explicitly that there are many antichrists who have gone out into the world. Second, all parties agree that these antichrists prove that it is the last hour. Of course, there is much disagreement about what exactly that means. Third, all parties agree that the antichrist is someone who denies Jesus came in the flesh (II John 1:7) and denies the Father and the Son, especially the Son as Christ (I John 2:22).  Fourth, all parties agree that anyone who is an antichrist is not a Christian. They do not know have the Son or the Father (I John 2:23).  On all of these major points and several minor ones most commentators agree.

However, does I and II John teach that we are to look for a future all powerful Antichrist?  There are numerous arguments used to back up the claim that John is talking about an end times leader: the use of a singular antichrist in 2:18, the use of anti in the term antichrist, the phrase “is coming” in I John 2:18, and the phrase “have heard.”  I will address these items in order. By the way, I am not arguing against an end times, all powerful figure.  I am simply asking whether John teaches us about this end times figure.

Do We Live in the Last Times?

“Last Time/Times”

            The phrase “last time” is used twice in the New Testament in I Peter 1:5 and in Jude 1:18. While the phrases in I Peter 1:5 and Jude 1:18 are translated the same in English, they use two different Greek words for “time.” Peter uses chairos and Jude uses chronos. I Peter 1:5 does refer to the final revelation of Jesus Christ. The phrase “reserved in heaven for you” points us in this direction.

            However, Jude 1:18 does not refer to the end of the world.  Jude 1:17-18 is almost an exact parallel with II Peter 3:2-3.  Therefore it is not surprising that Jude should agree with Peter that the last times had already begun. Jude says in verse 19 that scoffers are “these who cause divisions” among his readers. (See verses 4, 8, 10, etc.) Verse 16 says the same thing as verse 19. Those to whom Jude wrote his letter were already dealing with these false teachers. These scoffers are not men who will arrive with the coronation of the antichrist. They are men who were in churches that Jude was writing to.  The “last time” began in the first century.

            I Peter backs up Jude saying that the “last time” began with Christ.  Though Peter does not use chronos in I Peter 1:5 he does use it in 1:20.  Here is that verse:

            He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you (I Peter 1:20 ESV)

            Peter agrees with Jude. The last times began when Jesus “was made manifest,” that is when he came in the flesh. We do live in the last times, but they have been going on for almost 2,000 years now. 

End of the Ages

            There are two places where we are specifically told that the end of the ages has come.  Here are those two verses:

            Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

(1Co 10:11, ESV)

For then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

(Heb 9:26, ESV)

            There is much that could be said about these verses. It would be a worthwhile discussion to determine what are these “ages” Paul is referring to. But the main point for this post is that the end of ages came when Jesus sacrificed Himself upon the cross.  We usually envision the end of the ages as something to come in the future. Paul sees it as something that has already come.  

The End of the World?

It is commonly assumed that “last days” and similar phrases in the New Testament refer to the end of the world or the tribulation prior to the end of the world.  This assumption is so thoroughly ingrained in our thinking that to say we are living in the last days means the end of the world is near.  But does the Biblical data actually back this up? Does the phrase “last days” actually mean the end of the world? I want to look at some key biblical phrases that we usually think refers to the end of the world. I want to examine them in their context to see if our common interpretation of these verses is correct.

“Last Days”

Let’s begin with Acts 2:17.  In Acts 2 the Spirit has been poured out in tongues of fire and the believers in Jerusalem have begun speaking in other languages.  This causes some bystanders to accuse them of being drunk. Peter refutes this claim and says this:

But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;

(Act 2:16-17, ESV)

Peter tells the people at Pentecost that speaking in tongues and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit are a sign that the last days have begun.   Verse 33 clearly backs up this interpretation. According to Peter the “last days” have begun.  Peter’s sermon makes plain that Joel is beginning to be fulfilled right before their eyes. The prophets saw a time, which they called “the latter days,” when God’s Kingdom would be exalted and his people restored. Peter says this time began with the Ascension of Jesus Christ and the pouring out of the Spirit.

            Here are some other New Testament passages referring to the “last days.”

Paul says this in II Timothy 3:1-5,

“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.”

           

Many, many New Testament commentators make this passage refer to the end of the world.  This has been a key verse to show that as the end gets near men and women will become more wicked. However, at the end of verse 5 Paul tells Timothy to “avoid such people.” He goes on to say in verse 6 that these people creep into households and capture weak women. He says in verse 8 that these men, just like Jannes and Jambres, oppose the truth. But they will not get far because their folly will be manifest to all. (verse 9)

The last days in II Timothy 3:1 are not coming. They are here. Timothy is living in them.

            Hebrews 1:2 is one of the clearest passages on the last days beginning with Jesus Christ. Here is Hebrews 1:1-2

            Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

            The writer of Hebrews states it as plainly as possible. When Jesus took on flesh the last days began.  The old covenant days were gone and the new covenant days had come. The end of the world began with the birth of Christ.

            James 5 contains several references to the last days and the coming of the Lord. I will examine this passage later when I look at the phrase “the coming of the Lord.”

            II Peter 3:3 is another reference to “the last days.”  The entire passage needs careful attention and exegesis. What many commonly think it teaches, the end of the world, is debatable. However, the main point for the current discussion is that Peter says that scoffers will come in the last days.  And these scoffers already existed at the time Peter was writing. These scoffers are false teachers. (See II Peter 2) These scoffers are men who are saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?” (3:4) These are not men who will show up at the end of the world. These are men who existed when Peter was writing. He is telling his readers how to combat these false teachers.  So once again “last days” does not mean the end of the world.

            Those are the only five (including James) references to the last days in the New Testament. It is possible that James refers to the end of the world, but the other four plainly do not.  But what about phrases like “last time,” “last hour”, etc.?  Maybe verses like these refer to the end of the world? We will look at a few more of these passages the next week.